|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A prominent Palmetto State attorney who co-hosts a popular podcast could face disciplinary action from the South Carolina Bar – and the state’s supreme court – after assailing the integrity of the judge appointed to hear convicted killer Alex Murdaugh’s bid for a new trial.
Eric Bland – attorney with the Lexington, S.C.-based Bland Richter law firm – made disparaging comments about former Palmetto State chief justice Jean Toal on a recent episode of the Cup of Justice podcast, which he co-hosts. The self-proclaimed “Jackhammer of Justice” challenged Toal’s temperament and integrity – going so far as to describe her as a female dog who urinates in the courtroom as a means of marking her territory.
“She pees on every corner of that courtroom,” Bland said on the show. “And you know it when you walk in there.”
Wait … what?
***
Toal has been tasked by S.C. chief justice Donald Beatty with determining whether seismic jury tampering allegations leveled against Colleton County clerk of court Becky Hill rise to the level of warranting a new trial for Murdaugh.
Prosecutors – including lead state attorney Creighton Waters – have publicly praised Toal as an “amazing person, lawyer and jurist.” Defense attorneys have also lauded her appointment.
Bland clearly disagrees with those assessments.
“I worry about her temperament,” Bland said on the podcast (presumably unconcerned with his own). “I worry about what procedures are going to be put in place, the fact there was a status conference, and you know, I represent four jurors and I wasn’t even told of the status conference.”
Bland is referring to a December 21, 2023 teleconference held by Toal two days after Beatty tapped her to handle the high-profile Murdaugh retrial bid. It was not the official status conference for the hearing – which Toal has set for Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at the Richland County courthouse in downtown Columbia, S.C.
The hearing for Murdaugh’s retrial request has been set for January 29, 2024 – also at the Richland County courthouse. Both of these hearings will be public – and live-streamed – consistent with Toal’s promise to conduct this process in the sunlight.
In addition to questioning the former chief justice’s temperament, Bland also questioned Toal’s integrity on the Cup of Justice podcast.
“She has friends sometimes to reward and enemies to punish … or she has friends to punish and enemies to reward,” he said.
***
RELATED | ATTORNEYS BOLSTER MURDAUGH’S CASE FOR A NEW TRIAL
***
Attorneys we spoke with said Bland’s criticisms of Toal – while perfectly justified for non-lawyers – may have violated the oath of office he took (as recorded in the rules governing the practice of law in the Palmetto State). Specifically, Bland may have violated the portion of his oath in which he pledged to “maintain the respect and courtesy due to courts of justice, judicial officers, and those who assist them.”
They also cited the rules of professional conduct, specifically rule 8.4 (e) which expressly prohibits attorneys from engaging in conduct ”prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
It is unclear whether any formal complaints have been filed against Bland related to his podcast comments. Would it matter if they were, though? As we have previously reported, the Palmetto State’s attorney discipline system has plenty of gaps.
Ultimately, Murdaugh’s bid for a new trial hinges not on the pronouncements of attorney/ podcasters – but on allegations that Hill tampered with the jury that found him guilty of the murders of his wife and son.
After a six-week trial in Walterboro, S.C. last winter, Murdaugh was convicted on March 2, 2023 of killing his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, on June 7, 2021 at Moselle – the family’s hunting property near Islandton, S.C. The following day – March 3, 2023 – he was sentenced to consecutive life terms for those crimes by circuit court judge Clifton Newman.
Those sentences are now in jeopardy after Hill was accused of tampering with the jury – ostensibly in order to sell copies of her book, Behind the Doors of Justice. Things have further unraveled for Hill, who is facing multiple ethics investigations and potential obstruction of justice allegations related to a criminal inquiry.
(Click to View)
***
Worth noting? The jurors represented by Bland are witnesses to the upcoming evidentiary hearing – not parties to it. Only Murdaugh and the state of South Carolina – which successfully prosecuted him for murder – are parties. In fact, Murdaugh’s attorneys – led by Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin – have argued Bland should not be allowed to participate in the proceedings.
“His stated intent is not to protect the personal interests of his clients as witnesses, but to advocate to sustain ‘their’ verdict,” they wrote. “To allow a publicity-seeking lawyer for non-victim private parties to intervene in this criminal case and advocate against Mr. Murdaugh as an additional opposing party would violate (Murdaugh’s) procedural due process rights.”
We reached out to Bland to get his thoughts on the allegations against him – and his comments regarding Toal.
“I have said that (Toal) is highly intelligent, the smartest person in the courtroom, but I do not personally like her,” Bland told me.
Bland declined to address the specifics of the allegations against him, however, and proceeded to accuse this author of having lost “objectivity.” He then terminated the exchange by asking this author not to contact him again – and proceeded to go on a lengthy rant on social media attacking our media outlet.
“At this point, I would ask that you no longer text me,” Bland wrote.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina and before that he was a bass guitarist and dive bar bouncer. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and seven (soon to be eight) children.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to proactively address? We have an open microphone policy here at FITSNews! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
24 comments
This is delicious.
Sounds like Bland as an understanding of SC’s Queen of Corruption, aka Hugh Leatherman In Drag. Is someone going to chauffeur her between home and court to ensure she doesn’t incur a hit-and-run while DUI? Will her alcohol intake during the trial be monitored?
Hopefully, Bland, as a US Citizen, still has freedom of speech.
And does ever-bluffing Eric Bland (“EBEB”) respect the freedom of speech of Investigator Patterson OR Buster Murdaugh’s right to be left alone?
The last I heard, EBEB was pushing for Buster to be FORCIBLY questioned about what he knows about Stephen Smith’s death?
Why should Buster know anything about Stephen if Stephen’s own mother, Sanctimonious Sandi Smith (“SSS”) knows nothing (or pretends to know nothing) about what her son was doing that night or whom he had contacted before dying?
And who was it who pushed the FALSE blood spatter story about Alex Murdaugh’s (“AM”) T-shirt? Exactly: Malicious Mandi Matney (“MMM”), who had equally maliciously AND FALSELY pushed the OBVIOUSLY-STUPID idea that Stephen Smith had been killed somewhere else and his body carried three miles from his car (where not a single drop of blood was found) to be staged, and near Moselle at that!
Come to think of it, the stupidity of the fabricators and those who parrot them! If Paul and/or Buster Mrudaugh had somehow abducted Stephen Smith from his car and killed him there, why would then carry his body TOWARDS Moselle as opposed to AWAY from it?
Before you heap undeserved praise on EBEB, critically examine some of the stuff you have been parroting.
This is pathetic. I unsubscribed to FITS because of this style of “reporting.” Please focus on the story and evidence rather than personal animosity and professional jealousy.
Just for you, dear Carly, here is my analysis of the last piece of “evidence” which stood in the way of convincing Alex Murdaugh’s (“AM”) haters that he is innocent of the murders.
I tried to post here as a stand-alone comment but FITS would not let it through. If he does not let it through even as a reply, then you were right to unsubscribe.
Thank God, I solved everything; and the last pieces for me were Kenny Kinsey, Ph.D.’s talk at CrimeCon 2023 and my going back and reviewing Alex Murdaugh’s (“AM”) defense team’s January 2023 Motion for Sanctions, basically to exclude the white T-shirt AM was wearing when he discovered Maggie’s (“MKBM”) and Paul’s (“PTM”) bodies and which he gave IMMEDIATELY to responding Law Enforcement Officers when they asked for it.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
And boy, did AM’s defense team get played big time by Creighton Waters and Kenny Kinsey, Ph.D.!
Kenny Kinsey, Ph.D. ends that presentation with a report of his telling Creighton to put that shirt back in the closet.
In other interviews, either Waters or Kenny reported that Waters wanted Kenny to be “the canari in the mine,” meaning let Kenny say what he thinks and leave Creighton to spin it.
I hope that Kenny reads this and has the integrity (better late than never) that Becky Hill’s co-author showed by severing ties with “Boo” after initially defending her. And I do not know whether the photo of a shirt with stains on top is THE actual AM T-shirt or a dramatization of it.
But assuming it is, Kenny says it LOOKS like spatter but he cannot say it was BLOOD spatter because the hemo-trace tested negative for HUMAN blood.
That Tom Bevel charlatan from Oklahoma had first opined it was NOT spatter, then recanted and, for thousands of dollars, opined that it was spatter and the hemo-trace was a false negative.
When Tom Bevel got exposed in AM’s defense team’s motion, and based on Kenny’s advice, Creighton gave AM’s defense a Trojan Horse: all right, the State will not introduce that shirt.
Boy did that doom AM while his defense celebrated that pyrrhic victory!
In the absence of the ACTUAL shirt, the Prosecution suggested to the jury (and to the internet world from which the jury took its “facts”) that AM somehow buried his VERY bloody clothes AND the murder weapons behind his parents’ house in Almeda and put on a freshly laundered T-shirt which, according to one self-contradicting agent “smelled of laundry detergent.”
So, what is my solution which FINALLY exonerates AM and should convince ALL his haters who have any intelligence, self-respect, and/or conscience left?
Read carefully:
Bubba came in with his jaws clutching a bird that was flapping so hard MKBM thought it was “a Ginae” but PTM and AM corrected her “it’s a chicken.”
Remember the saying: “like a chicken with its head cut off”? An injured or captured bird is NOT a still one but a flapping attempting-to escape one.
Those tiny stains on top of AM’s T-shirt are bird-blood.
Proof? The LCV test for ANY blood was positive BUT the hemo-trace for HUMAN blood was negative.
And when was the hemo-trace test done? Right after AM’s August 2021 interview when it was clear that SLED had Paul’s video with Bubba and the chicken.
So, that shirt with TINY specks of NON-HUMAN blood around the neck and shoulders is THE one AM was wearing at the kennels when he extracted the bird from Bubba’s jaws then hurried to Almeda before it got too dark and back to enjoy some time with MKBM and PTM.
That means ALL AM’s clothes that day are accounted for, nothing hidden, AND the T-shirt AM gave law enforcement was the one AM wore to AND out of the kennels in the evening of 7 June 2021.
Since that T-shirt has no HUMAN blood spatter, AM could not have been the shooter.
I have previously explained why the Prosecution’s time of death is medically wrong; and a review of Kenny’s opinions strengthens my inferences that the REAL killers were two or more females with experience hunting animals but no prior military or law-enforcement experience of aiming at human beings. Those females went to Moselle armed with PTM’s previously-stolen guns and with the knowledge of PTM’s whereabouts because he was being SECRETLY followed and videotaped by Sara Capelli. That is based on the sloppiness and the strange angles of the aiming.
Who are those LIKELY females?
I hope they don’t shoot ME before I get to tell you because, by now, those females know how to shoot human beings and get away with it.
Please pray for me.
The guinea hen, or guinea fowl, is a small and hardy bird that’s a relative of the chicken and partridge, but has darker meat than either. Guinea hen is the beginner’s game bird – but it’s not at all gamey tasting. The flavor is often compared to pheasant, or described as extra-tasty chicken.
Thanks for the info.
If you believe in AM’s innocence of the murders as I do, will you kindly promise to make us a guinea feast when, God willing, AM gets exonerated of the murders?
Delicacies aside, would that bird not have been flapping even in Bubba’s jaws and would that bird not have sprayed some tiny blood droplets on AM’s white T shirt?
SubZeroIQ, you state, “And when was the hemo-trace test done? Right after AM’s August 2021 interview when it was clear that SLED had Paul’s video with Bubba and the chicken.” That is not true. They had not yet cracked Paul’s phone in Aug. 2021 and did not yet know about the video. They were not to learn that until the phone was unlocked in March 2022.
Why would it have taken SLED from June 2021 to March 2022 to unlock Paul’s phone?
In AM’s (having OBVIOUSLY lost at least 50 lbs and incidentally accompanied by Corey Fleming alone) August 2021 interview by SLED, AM is challenged about the time he left AND told that he is a suspect in the murders.
The falling-tree/shrub video is uncontested as timed around 7:30 pm to 8:00 pm, BEFORE THE DINNER, and has AM wearing a blue shirt (whether called Vinny-Vine or Polo or Carolina) and khaki pants, which is what Blanca had described AM as wearing to work earlier that morning with a sport coat added.
After having worn those all day on a hot day and having ridden around in a them for about an hour on a sunny humid June Low-Country day, it makes all the sense in the world that AM showered and wore something else, more comfortable, before dinner or after dinner before going to the kennels.
The question that matters is whether that T-shirt is what AM wore to the kennels; or was there a third set of clothes which AM wore to the kennels, supposedly got bloodied all over, buried somewhere, then changed into a “freshly-laundered, smelling of detergent” set of clothes?
Because that T-shirt has chemically-proven non-human blood, it was NOT the fictional “freshly-laundered, smelling of detergent” the SLED agent fabricated, but THE T-shirt AM wore to the kennels.
Because it has no spatter from Paul, AM could not have been the shooter of Paul.
When SLED actually ADMITTED to unlocking Paul’s phone does not change my analysis. It only bears to SLED’s dishonesty in the investigation.
Thanks for reading my analysis and questioning it in a civilized way.
Toal may have marked the corners of a courtroom but Bland seemed step in the doo on this. Why does he have a raging boner for Fits?… Ah, yes. Co-host. Cheers!
Jean Toal is independently wealthy and does not need the money she gets as an active/retired South Carolina (“SC”) state jurist.
And she started at the top (on SC’s Supreme Court [“SC S Ct”]) then continues two steps below that, which is the reverse of the career path most SC state jurists take: SC Circuit Court, then SC Court of Appeals (“SC CoA”), then SC S Ct. On her way “down” Jean Toal still skipped SC CoA; but on SC’s Circuit Court, Jean Toal has been surprisingly humble and more often-than-not sweet, a totally different persona from hers as SC Chief Justice, which is again also different from hers before she was challenged in her 1996 re-election bid.
The incomparably-courageous and perceptive moi once wrote in a brief that the post-1996 Jean Toal opinions appear written by a total stranger to the pre-1996 Jean Toal opinions. After that, a law student from New York wrote a law review article on the effect of that challenge on Jean Toal’s jurisprudence. The author of that law review article showed WITH VALID STATISTICS how the post-1996 challenge Jean Toal became THE most pro-prosecution justice on SC S Ct, closely followed by John Kittredge.
Though incessantly proud of being SC’s first female justice and later SC’s first female chief justice and also the first Roman Catholic one, I wish Jean Toal were MORE Catholic and less female. Behind her iron-hand persona when SC’s chief justice, and at least behind a sitting and very charming SC female U.S. district judge, if what may be the “debutante manners,” meaning these ladies were ingrained since childhood that it is RUDE to refuse something to your friends and that a southern hostess must ensure that each of her guests has something in his/her plate.
BUT LIFE and the law are NOT a southern cotillion.
Either Alex Murdaugh (“AM”) killed Maggie and Paul or he did not. If he did, his defense team should leave the party empty-handed, empty-mouthed, and empty-plated. If AM did not kill Paul or Maggie, those who ensured that AM got wrongly convicted should leave the party without their jobs and without their law licenses.
Sometimes there are no gray areas in justice.
Jean Toal should be more Catholic and adopt the Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty.
Why should jurists not bring their faiths into the law? The law is people’s VERY IMPERFECT effort to civilize society and themselves. Faith is by definition an acceptance of higher laws from higher beings.
So, Jean Toal, be Catholic and visit the prisoner as if that prisoner were Jesus Christ himself. Reprimand those who gloated on seeing AM brought into and out of a courtroom led by a LITERAL dog leash.
And Will Folks, think of what religious upbringing you want to give your children. They might reject it or cling to it when they grow older; but to bring children up without a moral core since early childhood is a big mistake.
I am unsure how many children Eric Bland has and what their ages are; but Will Folks shares with us that he has seven with an eighth, God willing, on the way. Will Folks should start with repentance of how he dealt with Nikki Haley and with AM because children learn from what they are shown, not what they are told.
Eric Bland is a discredit to the legal profession. He is all self-promotion, all the time.
I think you are confusing Alex Murdaugh for Eric Bland. AM represents the worst possible stain on the legal profession, and I’m just surprised that others who enabled him, including judges aren’t the focus of Fitsnews, rather than Eric Bland. I wish Fits would focus on expanding this case not getting into back and forth banter with folks.
What is FITSNews allergy to Rule 4.5? He admantly refuses to let through any comment of mine that mentions or quotes that rule.
Nonetheless, in the dark of night, I am again pasting Rule 4.5 which Eric Bland bragged about violating.
RULE 4.5: THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or professional disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Comment – This Rule is not included in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The language of this Rule is based upon DR 7 105 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
I just don’t know who to trust anymore after Becky Hill stuff. Who is telling the truth and who is lying anymore?
Look to objective concrete evidence, not to emotions and voices. Real science, not pop philosophizing, should lead you. God bless your search for the truth.
I am beginning to think that Eric Bland knows who the real killers of Paul and Maggie are just as Becky “Boo” Hill knew who THE REAL KILLERS ARE, which is why she destroyed her phones and got her son to spy on others.
And I think the attacks on ME are because I am getting too close to guessing correctly who the real killers are.
Who could those killers be? I shall, God willing and Will Folks and Jean Toal permitting, give you some theories in another comment or in court.
But, thank God, I woke up (from a literal nightmare as more often than not happens to me since a very unfair event in June 2022) this morning and found at least one other decent and intelligent person had read, and commented on, my comment on Kenny Kinsey, Ph.D.’s presentation in CrimeCon-2023 in Orlando, Florida.
Because I follow Jesus Christ’s parable on the seed-sower, I paste hereunder my reply to that other decent and intelligent person, praying the seeds hit less stones and less arid land.
? @alonawhalen , first, thank you so much for your open-mindedness, civility, and scholarship.
Second, my theory was NEVER that the real killers (and there is no doubt in my mind that they were at least two) were RANDOM and arrived UNARMED hoping to find one or more Murdaugh family gun to use.
I came to this case knowing NOTHING about the Murdaughs other than what I OCCASIONALLY read on FITSNews (before they limited the articles to non-subscribers to 5/month but I refuse to subscribe to FITSNews in protest over Will Folks’ racist bend and old lies against Nikki Haley), which turned out to have been propaganda probably pushed by Eric Bland before Eric and Will had a falling out, probably LITERALLY “haggling over price.”
What I DID know BEFORE the Murdaugh cases even arose is that the prosecution system in South Carolina is often used to extort one party or another IN CIVIL LITIGATION to cave to the other side who has the local prosecutor in their pocket. And if that local prosecutor cannot find a real crime you committed, (s)he will manufacture one for you.
Third, the very people who prosecuted Alex Murdaugh (“AM”) were (with the exception of only Savannah Goode and Mr. Conner) directly involved in trying to frame ME for harassment and later contempt-of-court AND/OR in covering up for those who tried to frame me, knowing that I was the victim, not the perpetrator of harassment. I had a jury trial with none other than Judge Clifton Newman presiding. I defended myself WITHOUT A LAWYER and, thank God, ULTIMATELY FULLY exonerated myself. But, to this day NO ONE IN SOUTH CAROLINA’S SYSTEM is willing to hold those who tried to frame me with false evidence accountable.
So, if I get accused of using AM’s case to get SOUTH CAROLINA’S system to look at prosecutorial misconduct, my answer would be: What is wrong with that purpose, even if it were my only purpose, which it is not?
Fourth and foremost, the Prosecution’s OWN early evidence in the trial is that Paul had at least TWO expensive guns lost/stolen months before the murders. My theory is that the real killers were the ones who had earlier stolen/found/bought Paul’s stolen/lost guns and later arrived at Moselle armed with those VERY EXPENSIVE guns.
I think you should probably look into the stories SubZeroIQ has and maybe hire him/her because they seem to know what’s up!
Thanks again, Kidd. Just wanted you to know that this is really my picture; therefore, I am, and always have been, she/her/hers. What are YOUR pronouns?
I am sorry I can’t ever find my comments on here and it doesn’t notify me so if I haven’t responded to you in the past I do apologize. What are my pronouns? Ehhh..He,she,it,they,us,we,not you obviously,and sometimes I’ve even been called an explicit word or two. ? For now though we can go with any one of them that represents the female gender. I am aware of who you are ma’am. I figured it out a while ago. I’ve interacted with you on YouTube a while back. You were quite upset with me for something but I don’t really remember what it was at the moment. It’s not important anyways. I hold strong grudges but not about anything in the cyber worlds. I learned a long time ago that ppl usually aren’t who you think they are on here. In real life they’re usually the exact opposite so I didn’t take offense. It’s nice to see you be such a presence on these articles tho..I read your comments all the time and I hardly ever disagree with what you’re saying. It’s very interesting to me how knowledgeable you are about this case. It’s really nice to see someone else who cares about the facts of this. They seem to keep getting twisted!
Also I would like to add that I don’t see any pictures on these profiles. I am afraid I’m not sure how to navigate this place very well
Renewed thanks for your comments and your care, Kidd. It is precisely to ensure that my thoughts are easily available to everyone who want to consider them that I copy and paste them as often as time and the chanel owners permit.
I hope I have never offended you when I got upset with you. If I did, please forgive me.
Otherwise, I found something else which strengthens my solving the shirt case and ultimately proving Alex Murdaugh’s (“AM”) innocence of the murders.
I, while multi-tasking, reran Creighton Water’s cross-examination of AM.
Guess what? Creighton asks AM, “was that chicken bleeding?” “did you wash your hands after that?”
To me, that proves Creighton knew the “spatter” was chicken blood and wanted to foreclose the Defense’s proof of it. Sadly for AM, his defense team were not quick enough on their feet to come to the chicken-blood-spatter conclusion.
But, thank God, I am. Hopefully it is not too late for AM for that brilliant conclusion of mine to be introduced, if only his defense team would show more humility and not be stuck in their own ways.
Jean Toal needs to recuse herself, but not because Eric Bland said so.
More frightening than the ever-increasing evidence of Becky Hill’s obsession with getting Alex Murdaugh (“AM”) convicted “right or wrong,” is the stunning evidence of Jean Toal’s total indifference to a judge’s duty to promote public confidence in the court system.
This is no longer SOLELY about whether AM’s two murder convictions should stand; it is about whether OUTSIDERS to the system can have confidence in it.
And frankly, if a white male lawyer sitting South Carolina (“SC”) state senator cannot convince a white female 27-year-serving judge of the importance of public confidence in the judiciary, WE OUTSIDERS (meaning immigrants, self-represented litigants, and/or, as in my own case, self-represented immigrant litigants) ARE JUSTIFIED in thinking WE NEVER HAD A CHANCE at any fairness in SC’s court system OR with anyone who taught or apprenticed in it.
I for one, now wonder whether, every time I enter an SC courthouse, I am expected to tip the bailiffs if I ask one of them for directions to a hearing or for permission to enter a courtroom to observe one.
In fact, in hind-sight, because of my physical disabilities, I cannot sit on a hard wood bench and often needed a padded chair or some cushions while I awaited my turn to be heard. Sometimes I was accommodated; other times I was denied, and rudely so. Now I wonder whether those bailiffs who denied me the use of unused softer chair were expecting a tip for it.
No one can call this doubt of mine unreasonable.
And that is the least of it.
A clerk of court who POSSIBLY fabricated a FaceBook page makes me wonder whether ANOTHER clerk of court can destroy something I file then pretend I never filed it, OR even forge my signature on a document I never filed, OR go to a judge in my absence and FALSELY pretend I had been rude to that clerk.
I am NOT saying any clerk has done that to me; I am saying THIS is the time, with the whole state and possibly country (forget about “the world” it has much more important things to worry about than little SC) watching for Jean Toal to make part of THIS hearing about clerk-of-court misconduct.
This is going to be on the legacy of, not only Jean Toal, but also of Donald Beatty, who assigned Toal to this motion.
If Toal cannot understand the importance of this for public confidence in the courts, then frankly, Toal NOW has more reasons to recuse herself than Clifton Newman ever did.
I put up with seeing Eric Bland’s profile which exudes fake sincerity and victimhood to post my brilliant thoughts everywhere I can, even here.
And here we go.
We now know, thanks to Becky “Boo” Hill’s book pages 58-60, that a white male guilty-voting, New-York-interview-giving, juror has a “baby mama” with whom he was have a troubled relationship.
Jean Toal’s exclusion of the wrongful removal of the “egg juror” is EXTREME LEGAL ERROR which she should reconsider on her own motion or on motion of Alex Murdaugh’s (“AM”) defense team which, despite their great efforts on behalf of their client, is IMPROPERLY too submissive to Toal.
At the very least, “Dick and Jim” should point out to Jean Toal what SC’s Supreme Court (“S Ct”) reiterated just yesterday in SC Advance Sheets (“SCAS”) Number 2 of 2024 at pages 26-27, which I paste herunder for everyone’s benefit:
The only quibble we have with the court of appeals’ double jeopardy analysis is its discussion that Benton suffered no prejudice from the mistrial because he was allowed to present his alibi witnesses at his retrial. The constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy protects defendants from the dread, anxiety, and financial cost of enduring the gauntlet of criminal prosecution and punishment more than once for the same offense. See Arizona, 434 U.S. at 503–05 (explaining the double jeopardy clause protects “the defendant’s ‘valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal'” and this right is valued because “a second prosecution . . . increases the financial and emotional burden on the accused, prolongs the period in which he is stigmatized by an unresolved accusation of wrongdoing, and may even enhance the risk that an innocent defendant may be convicted” (citations removed)).
The defendant’s interest in having his fate determined by the first impaneled jury is therefore “a weighty one.” Somerville, 410 U.S. at 471. As such, “the lack of apparent harm to the defendant from the declaration of a mistrial [does] not itself justify the mistrial[.]” Id. at 469. Further, in Jorn, a plurality of the Supreme Court noted inquiries into who benefits from a mistrial are “pure speculation.” 400 U.S. at 483. Therefore, the Jorn plurality concluded that to allow a retrial “based on an appellate court’s assessment of which side benefited from the mistrial ruling does not adequately satisfy the policies underpinning the double jeopardy provision.” Id.
Here, the trial court focused, as it should have, on whether, given all the circumstances, a mistrial was necessary to further the ends of public justice. See
United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579, 580 (1824) (stating a mistrial may be granted without violating double jeopardy when, in the sound discretion of the court, “taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated”); Gori v. United States, 367 U.S. 364, 368 (1961) (“Where, for reasons deemed compelling by the trial judge, who is best situated intelligently to make such a decision, the ends of substantial justice cannot be attained without discontinuing the trial, a mistrial may be declared without the defendant’s consent and even over his objection . . . .”). The trial court wisely understood that not granting a mistrial under the circumstances could undermine public confidence in the outcome. See Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 (1949) (“[A] defendant’s valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal must in some instances be subordinated to the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgements.”). We therefore vacate the court of appeals’ prejudice discussion but otherwise affirm its double jeopardy ruling.
Again, I do not think AM should be granted a new trial, I think (based on double jeopardy) he should be acquitted OF THE MURDERS out-right because STATE ACTORS wrongfully interfered with his right to have his case decided by the chosen panel, including the “egg juror.”
I also think “Dick and Jim” are being ineffective already for not pressing this point.
Yes, I know better than they do.
After all, I, thank God and WITHOUT A LAWYER, avoided getting myself wrongfully convicted by a jury presided over by none other than Judge Clifton Newman. “Dick and Jim” FAILED to get for their client what I got for myself.
Now, unless they listen to me, their client is at risk of getting his wrongful convictions cemented because “Dick and Jim” do not know the law as well as I do and are too arrogant to listen to me and give me credit for directing them to the more principled and fruitful paths.